- Philosophical framework -
The paradigm's philosophical framework specifies the basic assumptions made about the nature and properties of individuals and
the fundamental notions by which knowledge about individuals can be
gained (Uher,
2015a, 2018a,
2018c).
Individuals as complex living systems
To consider that individuals are living organisms, the TPS Paradigm
builds on complexity theories rooted in thermodynamics
(e.g., Prigogine), physics of life (e.g., Capra), philosophy
(e.g., Hartmann), theoretical biology (e.g., von
Bertalanffy), medicine (e.g., Rothschuh), psychology (e.g.,
Köhler, Koffka, Vygotsky, Wundt) and the social sciences (e.g., Morin).
Complexity theories conceive living organisms as
open nested systems organised at different levels of
complexity, from
atoms and cells over single individuals up to societies. At each level,
they function as organised wholes in which non-linear dynamics
occur from which new properties emerge
not predictable from their constituents (principle of emergence).
These new properties can feed back to the constituents from which
they emerge, causing complex patterns of upward and
downward causation. With increasing levels of organisation,
ever more complex systems and phenomena emerge that are less
rule-bound, highly adaptive and historically unique.
This highlights the inadequacy of assumptions any composite could
be known only by knowing its constituent elements (principles of
reduction and disjunction) and of linear methods of data analysis and
modelling, still widely used in research on individuals (Uher,
2018a, 2018c,
Trofimova, Robbins, Sulis & Uher, 2018;
Uher, Trofimova, Sulis, Netter et al., 2018).
|
For adequate explorations of individuals, the
TPS Paradigm builds on the concept of complementarity. It highlights that particular objects of research can be
exhaustively understood only by describing two mutually exclusive
properties that are irreducible and maximally incompatible
with one another, thus requiring different frames of reference, criteria
of truth and methods of investigation, and that may therefore be regarded
as complementary to one another (e.g., wave and particle properties of
light; Bohr).
In addition, as Heisenberg showed for physical phenomena,
complementary properties of an object of research cannot be
simultaneously determined with the same precision (Unschärferelation,
literally 'relation of imprecision' but mostly translated as
uncertainty principle). These concepts provide important
foundations also for research on individuals, as elaborated in the
methodological framework.
Complementarity is implemented in the paradigm's
frameworks in various ways, such as in concepts about the
psyche-physicality (body-mind) problem
as proposed by Fahrenberg, Walach, Bohr and others (Uher,
2015a, 2015c,
2015d),
in concepts of appropriate
phenomenon-method matching
(Uher,
2019) and to develop solutions for the long-lasting
nomothetic-ideographic
debate in research on individuals (Uher,
2015c).
|
All research is done by humans
All scientific endeavours are inextricably entwined with and thus
limited by human's perceptual and conceptual abilities
(Wundt, Peirce). This does not imply radical constructivist assumptions
that knowledge could be developed without reference to an existing
reality. But it also rejects naïve realist assumptions that individuals'
senses could enable direct and objective perceptions of the external
reality.
Instead, the TPS Paradigm builds on the recognition that we can
gain access to this reality only through our human abilities, which
inevitably limits our possibilities to get to know about, explore and
understand this reality. This epistemological position comes close to
those of critical realism (Bhaskar) and
pragmatism-realism (Guyon). They emphasise the reality of the
objects of research and their knowability but also that our knowledge
about this reality is created on the basis of our practical engagement
with and collective appraisal of that reality.
Therefore, science
is inseparable from its makers' particular perspectives on their
objects of research given their own positions in the world - as humans,
members of particular communities (e.g., culture, language, thought
tradition) and as individuals.
This
entails particular risks for unintentionally introducing all kinds of
anthropo-centric, ethno-centric, and ego-centric biases.
Such biases can
occur in the phenomena that researchers seek out to explore and the
questions they ask about these phenomena (metatheoretical level) as
well as in the techniques and practices researchers use to explore them
(methodological level; Uher,
2013,
2015a, 2018c,
2020).
|
More information available in Publications
and Science
Blogs.
|